WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday authorized the third version of the trip of the Trump administration ban to enter into force while court challenges against it continue. The decision was a victory for the administration after its mixed success in court during the summer, when the judges reviewed and finally dismissed disputes over the second version. to determine if the last ban was legal. Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor stated that they would have refused the request of the administration to authorize the latest ban to enter into force.
Court orders mean that the administration can fully implement its new travel restrictions of eight nations, six of them are predominantly Muslim. For now, most citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea will be banned from entering the United States, with some groups of people from Venezuela. Up
The podcast that gives meaning to the most delirious part of the 2016 campaign.
The restrictions vary in their details, but in most cases the citizens of the Countries will be unable to emigrate to the United States permanently and many will be banned from working, studying or spending their holidays here.
Iran, for example, will still be able to send its citizens in exchange for students, but these visitors will be subject to improved screening. Somalis will no longer be allowed to emigrate to the United States, but may be subject to additional control.
The Supreme Court's orders overturned a compromise in effect since June, when the court said travelers had ties to the United States. could continue to travel here despite the restrictions in an earlier version of the ban.
The orders gave no reason for the change of the court. The move suggested that the chances of the administration to prevail in the Supreme Court when judges consider the legality of the last ban have significantly increased.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order "a substantial victory for safety and security". A White House spokesman, Hogan Gidley, said, "We are not surprised by the decision of the Supreme Court today, the appellant" legal and essential to protect our homeland ". The Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups disputing the ban, said it would continue to oppose the ban while the disputes in the courts callers continue.
"The anti-Muslim bias of President Trump is not a secret, has confirmed several times, including last week on Twitter," said Omar Jadwat, director of the human rights project. immigrants from the ACLU. "It is unfortunate that the complete ban can go forward for the moment, but this order does not address the merits of our claims."
In a case before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco Trump had acted under his broad constitutional and statutory power to control immigration when he issued a new proclamation in September announcing the new travel restrictions.
Mr. Francisco wrote that the process leading to the proclamation was more deliberate than those that led to previous prohibitions, published in January and March. These orders were temporary measures, he wrote, while the proclamation was the result of extensive studies and deliberations.
The lawyers of the A.C.L.U. told the judges that few had changed. "The proclamation is the third order the president has signed this year prohibiting more than 100 million people from Muslim-majority countries from coming to the United States," he wrote in 1945. "
" A travel ban based on nationality against eight nations made up of more than 150 million people is unprecedented, "Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the Federal District Court wrote in a judgment. Maryland. Quoting statements by Mr. Trump, some made as a presidential candidate and others more recent, Judge Chuang concluded that the new proclamation was tainted with religious animosity and most likely violated the law. Constitutional prohibition of the establishment of religion by the government. Justice Derrick K. Watson of the Federal Court of Honolulu ruled that the September proclamation "suffers exactly the same evils as its predecessor," adding that it "clearly establishes discrimination on the basis of nationality" in violation of federal law "and the founding principles
The administration appealed these two decisions to the federal courts of Seattle and Richmond, Virginia. appeals are scheduled for this week.
Chuang J. limited his injunction to exclude persons without "a credible allegation of a good faith relationship with a person or entity in the United States," citing a Supreme Court ruling issued in June on the second ban on travel, Watson J. did not impose such a limitation, but an appellate court amended its order, citing also the language of the Court Supreme
The Hawaii lawyers, who challenges the ban, told the judges that there was no reason to do so
" Less than six months ago, this court considered and rejected a stay application identical to what the government now calls, "they wrote. "But the justification for this dramatic relief only made it weaken." Instead of a temporary ban on entry, the president imposed an indefinite term, deepening and extending the damage that a stay would inflict. "
Mr. Francisco asked the judges to allow each party to the third prohibition to come into force. According to him, the second version of the travel ban "provided for temporary procedures prior to the review and in the absence of presidential decision regarding the adequacy of information-sharing practices and of identity management of foreign governments ".